


Wvv\, 






k^f^f^i 



A^^^^AA^' 






f^^^f^^^^rs, 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



I 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



'^ ^ ^ Ai 



■AI^AA.AaA'^A^^ 



AAAr^OOC^A^A/ 



*' ^ A ,A r^' ^ /:>■ .^ .'^ '^ ^ '^ " ' 
^^ ..^..^^^'^/^A.AA^AA,^/^Ar\.0/^A^ 



„ V^A'^Or^A^AAAA^^^. 






Aa^aOaA/n 



A ,r^ A ,A ^ A ^ /^ ^ '^y^ 
AaAaaA/sAAAA 






"^v^^aAaa 



^Aa 



^^^A.,^r^A>^A, 






'''^A^!\f^.f^^mf\f,^mf^f\ff^fip^^i\^ 



'^■^Arsi 



Kt^f\f^r\ 



^/^:A^A^ 



^^^^^f^w^^- 



/NaAaaA^ 



'„::-, -WWwvw;' 



^^A,':^r>/^'^^,^ 






/^7^(^/^,/^/^ /^ /^ 



WAAr,.-„^AS?:; 



^^Aa^ 









'^,A/^/^- . • 



^^tmmk 



i^AA.'^^A'AA^^ 






/^aAa 









^A^AA^^nnAA^ 



;;;^;:;^?.oAAAAMAft^*/i!a^^af^^^i?:^;*.^^-^ 



A/>aA-A^.aa^^ 



(OaAaOoAAA' 



HAA*r»>' '^ 



%fs2'^^2^^^' 









'^AA/Aa^ A 



EXCLUSIVE IMMERSION: 



ITS ERRORS 



It^ I^o^idkl doi|^eG[uer}de^; 



Rev. I. LINEBARGER, A. M., 

OF THE ROCK RIVER CONFERENCE. 

Ye do Err, Xot Knowing the Scriptures.— 3faf^. 22, 29. 



MUL TUM IN PAR VO. 



1676- x; 



MILWAUKEE: , ,, .^^^^^^G 

Printed by I. L. Hauser & Company. 

187G. 



^ 



^ 



xj?\\ 



v^- 



The Library 
OF Congress 

WASHINGTON 



COPYRIGHT SECURED 

FOR 
THE AUTHOB.— 1876. 



PREFATORY NOTE. 



The title page fully explains the import of this treat- 
ise. Its sole purpose is to uproot and destroy the 
errors and traditions of men and promote the truth as 
it is in Jesus. 

^ It is presented in a cheap and popular form that it 
may reach multitudes, who have neither time to read, 
nor means to purchase larger and more expensive 
works. The first chapter embodies many clear, con- 
cise and Scriptural proofs of several propositions, 
which directly oppose and totally subvert several 
errors of exclusive immersion. 

The second chapter contains an elaborate and com- 
plete Discourse, showing still further, the utter fallacy, 
superstitious history, leading causes and shocking 
consequences, of exclusive immersion. 

In short, "things new and old" are compressed in 
these pages, and it is humbly believed, that the truth 
is so clearly and forcibly stated and illustrated that it 
will expel error as light dispels darkness. "With 
malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmnes 



4 



in the right as God gives us to see the right," I lay 
this unpretentious tribute at the Master's feet, fer- 
vently praying, that many a precious soul, perplexed 
and in doubt as to the true mode of Christian Bap- 
tism, may be led, by its pages, out of the erring 
complex ways of men, into "Heaven's easy, artless, 

unencumbered Plan. 

I. L. 

Dixon, Ills., July 24th, 1876. 



TESTIMONIAL. 

June 30, 1876. 
Rev. And Dear Sir: 

With much interest, and no little protit, I have read 
vour manuscript on "Exclusive Immersion, its Errors 
and Its Logical Consequences." Without intending 
to flatter the author, I must be permitted to say that, 
as an argument, it is doubtless the best, the clearest, and 
Avithin the same compass the most complete, I have 
ever met with on that subject. You have fairly ex- 
posed the fallacy of anabaptist reasoning, and shown 
that most bigoted and most mischievous of modern 
heresies to be utterly baseless and indefensible. The 
logic of your pamphlet is sound; its language, clear 
and concise ; its spirit, kind, courteous, and charitable. 
While sectarian controversy is generalh' to be depre- 
cated as the bane of true religion, everv lover of 
Christian Truth must rejoice in so seasonable a pro- 
duction, and some probably will even And cause to 
thank God for the occasion which called it torth. No 
honest mind can read it without conviction ; and its 
publication ought to be productive of Christian Mod- 
-esty and Christian Charitv in those whose error it so 
gently yet so faithfully rebukes. I remain 
Yours in Christ Jesus, 

J. CROSS. 
To the Rev. Isaac Linebaro-er^ A. M, 



Note by the Author: — The above testimonial of 
the Rev. Joseph Cross, D. D.^ LL. D., the present 
learned and able Rector of the Episcopal Church of 
Dixon, Ills., is the more valuable from the fact, that 
he has traveled extensively in the East, and declares, 
in common with Prof Robinson and other travelers, 
that "the baptismal fonts, still found among the ruins 
of the most ancient Greek Churches and going back, 
apparently, to very early times, are not large enough 
to admit of the baptism of adult persons by immer- 
sion, and were obviously never intended for that 
use." Dr. Cross says that those of the largest capa- 
city will not contain a depth ot water of more than 
ten inches. 

It is known, too, that all the ancient pictures, of 
which many have been preserved to the present day, 
represent both parties as standing in the font, whilst 
the administrator sprinkled or poured water from a 
vessel upon the head of the candidate, and thus the 
baptism was administered in a Scriptural wav, by ap- 
plying the element to the person. 

No doubt, Christ was baptized in this way, whilst 
standing in Jordan, as all the ancient pictures, dating 
back to the third century and some of them even 
earlier, unanimously portray. 



7 

The idea, that John took hold of Christ's person 
and plunged under water the sacred body of Him 
"whose shoe's-latchet he was not worthy to unloose," 
is revolting to the mind and not taught in the New 
Testament. I. L. 



CONTENTS, 



Chapter I.— The Test.— Six Points of Difference Between Joiin's Bap- 
tism and Christian Baptism.— Position of Moses and John, Similar.— 
Christ's Baptism neither Johanic nor Christian.— What Was It?— The 
Greeli Prepositions Designate Place, not Mode of Baptism.— Reason of 
John's Eemoval from Bethabarato Enon.— Three Arguments, Proving 
that the Eunuch was not Immersed . The Religious or Ritual Meaning of 
Baptize in the New Testament.— No Appeal from a Scriptural Verdict. 
—An Exclusive Form of Prayer more Scriptural than Exclusive Immer- 
sion. 

Chapter II.— A False Assumption.— The Word Inime?'S6, not in the Bible 
and Why.— How an Immersion Reverses the Divine Method of Baptism. 
Oar Position.— When Discussion Becomes a Necessity.— Origin of Im- 
mersion. —The Beginning of Exclusive Immersion.— Two Causes for this 
Perversion of the True Mode of Baptism.— Rom. 6, 4. and Col. 2, 12, 
Rescued from the Support of Error. An Incongruous Comparison.— 
The Relation of the Two Sacraments, Scripturally Adjusted.— Cornelius 
and His Household Baptized by Affusion.— Whedon's Law of Interpreta- 
tion —The Consequences Involved, add Great Weight and Seriousness to 
the Subject —Five Dreadful and Yet Perfectly Logical Consequences, 
Showing the utterly Unscriptural and Unreasonable Character of Ex- 
clusive Immersion. Parallel Between the Sticklers for Circumcision and 
the Advocates of Exclusive Immersion.— Conclusion. 



CHAPTER I. 

But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine.— Titws 2, 1. 

Our text enjoins a duty, which is incumbent on 
every public servant of God. Every minister of 
Christ "is set for the defense of the Gospel" and for 
the maintenance "of sound doctrine." The sound- 
ness or unsoundness of any doctrine must be finally 
tested and decided by an appeal "to the law and the 
testimony." If it abides this test, let it stand; if not^ 
let it fall. It is by this test that we have thoroughly 
and prayerfully examined the "doctrine of Bap« 
tisms," and are prepared to prove the following points : 
That yohfi's baptism was not a Christian baptism 
but differed from it in six important pa7'ticulars. 

1. It has a distinctive name. Inspiration calls it 
"John's Baptism." The Bible names things as they 
are^ and if this had been Christian baptism, it would 
never have been named "John's baptism." — Acts 

2. The nature of John's baptism totally distinguish- 
es it from Christian baptism. The prerequisite ot 
the former, was repentance and the confession of sin : 



12 



the prerequisite of the latter, is a justified and saved 
state. 

3. They differ as to the time of their institution. 
Christian baptism was not instituted until Christ com- 
missioned his apostles to go, teach and baptize all 
nations, which took place three years and six months 
after ''John didbaftize in the zuilderness'' 

4. John required of his disciples, in order to their 
baptism, faith in a Messiah to come. Christian bap- 
tism requires laith in the realit}' and death of an al- 
ready crucified and risen Savior. 

5. Christian baptism imports faith in the Holy 
Trinity. John made so such requisition. 

6. The apostles paid no regard to John's baptism, 
but rebaptized his disciples, a circumstance that never 
would have happened, had John's baptism been 
Christian baptism. The thousands on the dav of 
Pentecost had doubtless, for the most part, been pre- 
viously baptized by John as well as the twelve of 
John's disciples whom Paul found at Ephesus, Actg 
19, 1-12, and yet the apostles administered to them all 
Christian baptism, plainly proving that they regarded 
John's baptism as only a Jewish mode of purifica- 
tion, and not a Christian baptism. 

The fact is, John belonged to the Old Testament. 
He was the last and greatest of the prophets of the 



13 

Mosaic dispensation, but he that is least in the Chris- 
tian kingdom of God is greater than he. The Leviti- 
cal ritual terminated not in John, but in Christ. Had 
John immersed the people, he would have contradict- 
ed the uniform practice of symbolical purification in 
vogue for fifteen hundred years, and the Jews would 
have asked: By what authority doest thou practice 
this mode? John, no doubt, baptized the people as 
Moses did, when "he took the blood of calves and 
of goats with water and scarlet wool and h3's- 
sop and sprinkled both the book and all the people.'^ 
— Heb. p, ig. 

Indeed, the positions of Moses and John, were quite 
similar. Moses introduced Joshua, the leader, into the 
promised earthly Canaan. John introduced Christ, 
the leader, into the promised heavenly Canaan. 

Both adopted and practiced the same mode of puri- 
fication. With all these plain and evident facts before 
us, how great and glaring the error appears, which 
teaches the identity of John's baptism with Christian 
baptism : The second point to prove is this : That the 
haftism of Christ -partook neither of the character 
of yohii's baptism nor of the nature of Christian 
baptism. 

I. John's baptism implied repentance, but Christ 
knew no sin and needed no repentance. 



14 

2. It implied, also, faith in a Messiah to come, 
which would have been absurd in the case of Christ. 

3. Neither did Christ's baptism partake of the na- 
ture of Christian baptism, for Christian baptism w^as 
not instituted till after his resurrection, and is performed 
in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, 
which would have been irrelevant and trifling in the 
case of Christ. 

4. The import of Christian baptism, as a sign and 
seal, is totally inapplicable to the person and character 
of him " who was holy, harmless and undefiled, sepa- 
rate from sinners and made higher than the heavens." 

It is here, again, that exclusive immersion involves 
itself in great and palpable error. 

It not only affirms the identity of John's baptism 
with Christian baptism, but declares that Christ him- 
self received the ordinance of Christian baptism as an 
example for his followers. The skillful use of this 
spurious reasoning has, perhaps, gained more adher- 
ents to this false doctrine than any other method. 
In times of re\'ival, it is especially brought to bear on 
the tender feelings of young converts, and they are 
exhorted to "go down the banks of Jordan," that is, 
be immersed in obedience to Christ's example. 

No form of teaching could be more untrue and 
unscripturaL 



15 

It has neither truth nor fact to support it. It finds 
its parallel alone in that "wind of doctrine" with which 
the hearts of the simple were tossed to and fro and 
deceived by the sleight of men in the days of the 
apostles. 

There are three facts, that demonstrate beyond the 
possibility of a doubt, that Christ never intended his 
baptism to be an example for his followers, in any 
particular. 

1. He makes no reference whatever to the event 
in an}' of his subsequent teachings. There is no 
command, nor allusion an3^where in the New Testa- 
ment, implying that his example is to be imitated in 
this respect. The authority of his word and not his 
example, obligate his people to confess him in bap- 
tism. 

2. Christ gave us no example of celebrating the 
Lord's Supper. 

He said: "drink ye," &c., but he himself did not 
partake of the sacramental elements. Why should 
he set us an example in one sacrament and omit it 
in the other. If the power of his example was 
needed in one instance, it was equally needful 
in the other. The same divine authoritative word, 
that commands us to be baptized, also commands us 
to show the Lord's death till he come, and his exam- 



i6 

pie in either case would have been unnecessary and 
out of place. 

3. His example, in this regard, would be essen- 
tially defective and unsafe to follow. Although 
"the grace of God was upon him" from a child, 
he deferred his baptism till the age of manhood. 
Shall pious youth wait till they are thirty years old 
before they publicly avow Christ in baptism ? 

Christ, also, waited "till all the people were bap- 
tized," (Luke 3, 21), before he submitted to the cere- 
monv. 

x\s their exemplar, ought he not to have preceded 
rather than have followed the people? He set an 
example of -procrastination in this particular. iVll 
this plea for exclusive immersion by an appeal to the 
baptism of Christ is as false and baseless as it is pos- 
sible for error to be. 

It is an association of things found only in the err- 
ing imagination of men. The very nature of Christ's 
baptism forbids the possibility of its imitation. No 
man ever did or can follow Christ in this particular. 
The circumcision of Christ at the age of eight days is 
just as much of an example to his friends as his 
baptism at the age of thirty years. 

Why was Christ circumcised or baptized at all ? 
It was wholly for the purpose of obedience to the 



17 
Mosaic economy, to which he, as a Jew and a son of 
David, belonged. He was "made under the law," 
and respect for "the law given by Moses" required full 
conformity to its entire ritual. That law required 
that every priest should be formally consecrated 
to his work, by the holy annointing at the age of 
thirty years, (Lev. 8 chap., Ex. 29 chap..) At the 
age of thirty, Christ came forth to enter on his public 
work as a "merciful and faithful high priest to make 
reconciliation for the sins of the people." 

He needed a formal consecration to this work and 
to whom should he go but unto John, the bold and 
rugged priest and prophet of the wilderness. When 
"John forbade him" Christ removed his conscientious 
scruples by referring him to the still existing and 
binding obligation of the Mosaic ritual; "suffer it to 
be so now ; for thus it becometh us to fulfill all right- 
eousness." In these words of Christ we find the on- 
ly reason, that rendered his baptism at all fitting or 
necessary. 

It was his public and official installation into the 
functions of the high priesthood, as was required of 
him w^ho came to fulfill all righteousness, that is, to 
fulfill every statute and requirement of the Mosaic 
ritual. 

As God's high priest,"consecrated for evermore," he 
cleansed the temple; and w^hen questioned as to his 



i8 

authority, he appealed to the baptism of John, as a 
sufficient vindication of his authority, plainly showing 
that he considered his baptism nothing more nor less 
than a priestly consecration to that work. (Math. 21, 
12. 23-27.) 

Another point I wish to prove is : that nothing-what- 
ever can be inferred as to the mode of baftisjn from 
the use of the Greek prepositions en^ eis^ ek and afo. 
A glance at the different expressions employed by 
the Evangelists w^ill prove this point. Math. 3. 6, 
says : they were baptized of him in Jordan. Mark 
I. 4, says: John did baptize in the wilderness. In 
Luke 3, 3, the same fact is stated differently: He 
came into all the country about Jordan, preaching 
the baptism of repentance. John 3, 23, states the 
same thing in another way: John also was baptizing 
in Enon, near to Salim. 

Language so various and general, w^as never in- 
tended to teach the precise mode of baptizing. It re- 
fers only and exclusively to the place, the region^ 
where John exercised his ministry. 

John baptized both in the wilderness and at Enon; 
and it is just as reasonable to infer that he plunged 
the people under the sands of the wilderness, or under 
the streets of Enon, as to infer, because he baptized at 
Jordan, that therefore he must have plunged the mul- 
titudes under water. The great error of exclusive 



19 

immersion consists in inferring a mode of baptism from 
certain scriptures, which were only intended to point 
out the locality where baptism was administered. 

Thus this error, here as in all other cases, "wrests" 
Scripture from its intended use and perverts and mis- 
leads the uninformed. 

There are three facts invariably connected with the 
administration of baptism at any time or place : 

1. A coming to the place of baptism. 

2. The act of baptism. 

3. The going away from the place of baptism. 

The act of baptism is intermediate between the 
other two facts, one of which precedes and the other 
follows. The going to or "into" and departing 
away from or "out ol" the water, have nothing more to 
do with the mode of baptism than the driving a horse 
"into and out ol" the w^ater has anything to do 
with the mode of his drinking. A horse drinks in 
the same way, whether watered in the stable or at 
a well or river, so baptism was always administered 
in the same way, by the application of water to a 
person, whether the place was a wilderness, a jail, a 
house or a river. 

According to Winer's Greek Idioms, eis and apo, 
when used in connection with verbs that denote mo- 
tion, as in the cases of the baptism of Christ and the 



20 

Eunuch, always have the primary meaning of going 
to and away from a place. 

Nothing, therefore, can be more erroneous than to 
infer the mode of baptism from prepositions, only used 
to designate localit}'. The fallacy is apparent to every 
reflecting mind. 

Another point I wish to make is : that quality and not 
quantity of water induced John to move from Betha- 
bara to Enon. There was more water at Bethabara 
than at Enon, for it is 25 miles nearer the mouth of 
Jordan. As the hot season approached, John knew 
that the health and comfort of the vast multitudes 
that came to his ministry, demanded a better quality 
of water and he left Bethabara and came to Enon, a 
place of "much water," or of many waters, as the 
Greek expresses it, for the place was called Enon, 
because of its man}- fountains and streams of pure, 
living water. When an encampment, either for mili- 
tary or religious purposes, is located at the present 
day, the[first reference is alwa3's paid to the quality 
rather than to the quantity of water. Such was the 
motive that directed John's course from Bethabara to 
Enon. 

Another point of interest is: that all the facts con- 
nected with the eunuch's baptism, prove that he could 
not have been immersed and must have been bap- 



tized in a different wa3^ There are three arguments 
that establish this point. 

1. The place forbids the supposition of an immer- 
sion. It was on the "way that goeth down from 
Jerusalem, unto Gaza, which is desert^ (Acts 8, 26.] 

The sight of water at all in this "desert" was evi- 
dently a surprise as the exclamatory language of the 
eunuch implies: "5*^^, water P 

2. The quantity of the water was inadequate for 
the purpose of an immersion. 

"They came unto "a certain" water" (Acts 8. 36). 
The ti translated "certain" is used in a diminutive 
sense and means some^ any^ or a little water. It was 
in this "desert" that the herdsmen of Gerar did strive 
with Isaac's herdsmen, saying : The water is ours : 
and he called the name of the well Esek or conten- 
tion'^ because they strove with him." (^Gen. 26, 20.) 
It was here the Philistines stopped up the wells after 
the death of Abraham, and Isaac's servants digged 
and found a well of springing w^ater. It was, no 
doubt, such a well or watering-place for travelers, 
before which the eunuch "commanded the chariot 
to stand still." 

Both Philip and the eunuch alighted from the chariot 
and went to the water. Philip baptized him, and 
the eunuch went on his way rejoicing, and the spirit 
of the Lord caught away Philip. Philip was im- 



mersed just as much as the eunuch, for both went in- 
to the water, and both came up out of the water, pos- 
itively proving that the prepositions "into and out 
of," have nothing to do with the mode of the eunuch's 
'baptism. "And he baptized him," or the act of bap- 
tism took place after they went to or " into" the wa- 
ter, and before they came awa}^ from or " out " of the 
water, as must take place in all baptisms, whatsoever 
the mode. The prepositions onlv show that the bap_ 
tism was administered where there was water, but 
indicates nothing as to the quantity of water, or the 
mode of baptism. 

3. " The place of the Scripture which he read' 
and Philip expounded, proves that an immersion was 
not only improbable, but even unthinkable. 

Philip was explaining to him the prophesy of 
Isaiah concerning Him who was to " sprinkle many 
nations," Isaiah 52,15. The " man of Ethiopia heard 
the w^ord and believed with all his heart and desired 
to be baptized, as an outward sign and profession of 
his saving faith in the Son of God." He was a rep- 
resentative of the " many nations" whom the Messiah 
should sprinkle and purify. Philip preached the doc- 
trine of sprinkling to him but said nothing about an 
immersion. Thus the "desert place, the scarcitv of 
w^ater, and the Scripture read and explained, conclu- 
sively prove that the Eunuch's baptism must have 
been by afhision. 



23 

Another proposition amply sustained by Scripture 
is : that bapttzo in connection with the ordinance of 
baptism, never means to dip, plunge or immerse, but 
always to -ptirify. It does not even mean to sprinkle 
or polir, but its one and invar iahle meaning is, to 
-purify. There is abundant and satisfactory proof of 
this vital point in this discussion. 

4. Prof Edward Robinson's Greek Lexicon is re- 
garded by scholars of all denominations as the ac- 
knowledged standard authority for every Greek word 
of the New Testament and, in no case does he give 
dip, plunge, or immerse as a meaning of baptizo in 
the New Testament. Neither does baptizo bear the 
exclusive meaning of dip, plunge or immerse 
in Classic Greek, as the Rev. Dr. Dale has proven by 
almost innumerable citations in his learned volume on 
Classic Baptism. But one might as well expect to 
find the doctrines ot Christ or of Paul in the writings 
of Aristotle or Plato, as to find the New Testament 
meaning of a Greek word in Pagan or Classical au- 
thors. The rich, mellow apple of a well-cultivated 
orchard is ver}^ different in its appearance and quality 
from the hard crab-apple that once grew wild in the 
forests of the Old World. Yet it is the same apple 
transplanted, improved and ennobled. So, also, the 
sacred baptizo of the New Testament is quite differ- 
ent in its meaning from the pagan baptizo of heathen- 



24 

ism. Christianity infused a new meaning into many 
old words, and coined many new words to express its 
manifold divine ideas. The new wine demanded 
new bottles. Ekkhsia or Church in heathen wri- 
ters, meant exclusively an assembly ofcitizens for mu- 
nicipal or secular purposes, but in the New Testa- 
ment it means a community of believers separated 
from the world and devoted to the service of God. 

Deipnon^ or supper, always in classic Greek meant 
a feast, a sumptuous repast, but its religious or ritual 
meaning is now expressed in the use of a morsel of 
bread or a sip of wine in the Lord's Supper. 

Baptizo, also, has but one invariable^ nni/hrf/i mean- 
ing in the baptismal rite. It is the technical word 
used by the Holy Ghost to express the meaning of the 
puriiying rites and ceremonies of both the Old and 
New Testaments. It appropriates and embodies in 
itself the ''divers baptisms " of the Old Testament 
and designates in the sacrament of baptism the effect 
of the apj->lication ot water to a person. It always 
means to purify, no more, no less. The ritual effect 
of the word defines and explains its meaning. To 
baptize and to purifv in Hebrew and Scripture phrase- 
ology mean precisely the same thing. The two 
words are perfectlv synonomous. The baptism ot 
water is a ritual purification; the baptism of the Spirit 
is a real purification. The former symbolizes the lat- 



25 

ter. The Scriptures never predict that the Messiah 
would immerse, but always that he would purify. 

The uniform and expressive language of prophecy 
is, that He would sit as a refiner and purifier of silver 
and so thorough and sifting would be his purifying 
agency that few wonld be able to abide the da3^of his 
coming. The Jews hastened to the ministry of John, 
musing in their hearts whether or not he was the 
Christ, the great and predicted purifier, and their 
spontaneous inquiry was: why baptizest or purifiest 
thou, then, if thou art not the Christ ? John i \2<^. 

I, answered John, baptize or purify you with water 
but He shall baptize or purify you with the Holy 
Ghost. 

A question arose between some of John's disciples 
and the Jews about purifying, and w^as decided by an 
appeal to baptism, manifestly proving that purifying 
and baptizing have preciselv the same meaning in 
Biblical usage (John 3:25, 26). 

The washing of tables (or the baptism of couches 
or beds, as it stands in the original) of which we 
read in Mark 7 4 was nothing more nor less than a 
ceremonial purification of those things, lest an unclean 
person should have sat down upon them. 

The tables or couches mentioned were longer and 
wider than our sofas or lounges and it was the relig- 
ious custom of the Jews to baptize or purify them as 



26 

often as they washed their cups, pots and brazen ves- 
sels. The immersion of such huge pieces of furniture 
three times a day is totally incredible, and there was 
nothing in the manner of the purif3'ing of the Jews 
that required it. They were baptized or puritied by 
sprinkling or aftusion as Dean Alford and Dr. Whe- 
don both state in their comments. Bv thus "compar- 
ing spiritual things with spiritual " the Bible interprets 
the meaning of its own terms and declares a verdict 
from which there can be no appeal. 

The unsettled elements of this tedious controversy 
are thus allayed by the breath of the Almighty and 
the right of appeal is abolished forever by the divine 
authority of the word of God. The churches of the 
Redeemer will ultimately be obliged to accede to this 
position without a dissenting voice, and here may they 
rest, not only emblematically purified with water, but 
baptized or rather purified and refined with the 
Holy Ghost and with fire. 

Baptizing and purif}'ing express not the external 
mode of an action but its blessed effect. Mode and 
effect are as distinct as the truit and the vegetable pro- 
cesses by which the fruit is produced. A command 
to baptize or purif}' leaves the mode of baptizing or 
purifying optional with the individual. 

In Christ's great commission to baptize all nations, 
he commands the production of a deffinite effect, re- 



27 

gardless of the mode of symbolizing or securing that 
effect. 

The words of the commission are all generic and not 
specific and command the chuixh to go, -preachy bap- 
tize and teach^ without regard to the mode of going, 
preaching, baptizing and teaching. As there ai-e dif- 
ferent ways of going, such as walking, or riding by 
land or water; or different ways of teaching, as, for in- 
stance, by conversation or example, a tract or an ob- 
ject-lesson, so there are difterent modes of baptizing or 
purifying and all these external methods are to be left 
entirely to the option of the indi\'idual and to circum- 
stances. Christ ordained means for the accomplish- 
ment of a required result and wisely left the external 
mode of using and applying those means to the free 
and intelligent choice of his faithful followers. Every 
institution of the Gospel is a means to an end. 
Preaching is the use of speech for the evangelization 
of men, and consists of sermons, exhortations, homi- 
lies or expository lectures. All these forms of speech 
are only different modes of preaching. They grow 
out of the generic command to "preach the Gospel to 
every creature." To fasten preaching dow^n to any 
cast-iron set mode of speech would be as much out of 
place as to arrest the angel whom John "saw fi\^ in 
the midst of heaven, having the everlasting Gospel to 
preach," and drag him down from the sky and harness 



28 

him with a draught-horse to a load of earth. It is just 
so with the command to baptize, which Christ uttered 
in the same connection. It is di generic word, compre- 
hensive in its meaning, and allows the adoption of any 
method that will facilitate the purpose of the Gospel 
and any attempt to tie it down to the signification of 
a mere external mode is a clog, a dead weight, that 
hampers the progress of the truth as it is in Jesus. 
There is much more Scripture authority for insisting 
upon a set and stereot}-ped form of prayer, than there 
is for insisting upon a fixed, tinderiating mode of 
baptism. Christ did say: "After this manner, there- 
tore, pray ye." But he never said, after this mauner 
baptize ye. He taught us how to pray, but he never 
taught us how to be baptized. Had the 7node been 
neccessary, a word Irom him would have settled this 
question forever. No such word was ever uttered, 
and the legitimate presumption is that he considered 
the external mode as indifferent and not essential. If 
the form of prayer he gave us, allows the greatest 
variet}- of expression in making our requests known 
unto God, much more shall we be allowed the utmost 
liberty of choice as to the mode by which we shall 
dedicate ourselves to God in baptism. It is mv set- 
tled and godly conviction that the preceding points and 
propositions are all warranted by the Word of God, 
and will commend themselves to the considerate and 
unpredjudiced judgment of all persons. These 
things become sound doctrine. 



CHAPTER 11. 

Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good.— i TTies. 5 : 21. 

Oil?' subject this evening is the error or the un- 
scri^tttral assumption of exclusive immersion and its 
logical consequences. 

It is claimed that there can be no baptism without 
immersion. This circumstance is made absolute!.^ 
essential to the validity of the ordinance. It is as- 
sumed without the shadow of a proof, that John 
plunged the millions one by one that came to his bap- 
tism, of scarcely eight months duration ; it is assumed 
that Christ was immersed, and that the thousands of 
the Jerusalem Church were immersed, notwithstand- 
ing the scarcity of water and the impracticability of 
the undertaking. In every instance, exclusive immer- 
sion assumes and asserts a thing that isutterty incapa- 
ble of proof. Like every other e7^7^or or heresy of 
mankind, it rests upon assumption, and nothing but 
assumption. Eveix the gigantic imposition of Catho- 
licism is based upon nothing but the bold and daring- 
assumptions of the order of Jesuits. It is exactly so 
with exclusive immersion. It has nothing what- 



30 
ever either in scripture, reason, or history to rest upor 
but the bold and unwarranted assumptions of its inter- 
ested advocates. 

It is our purpose to examine and disprove th> 
sweeping and erroneous assumption and to show the 
an immersion is not essential to Christian baptism. 
We all know that the word immerse is not found in 
the English Bible. Neither is the word irom whenc 
it is derived, found in any edition of the Greek or Lat- 
in Testaments. 

hnmerse is a word deri^-ed from the Latin im- 
niergere and means to dip, plunge, to stick into an\- 
thing, to immerse, a word not even found in the Lat- 
in Testament. The 7'eason is obvious. The learned 
translators of the Greek Testament into the Latin lan- 
guage, in the second centurv, knew that there was no: 
a thing in the Christian religion that could be symbol- 
ized or expressed by an immersion^ and hence the}- 
had no use for a word ot such narrow and limitec 
meaning and application. Thev knew that the whole 
ritual of the Old and New Testaments, would be 
fulfilled to the letter without the immersion of a sincrlc 
person. 

If immerse and baptize were terms of equivalent 
import, they would be convertible, and the one would 
have been freely interchanged with the other in the 
translation of the Greek Testament into Latin and 



31 

English. In no instance, however, is this the case. Baf- 
tizo is always used, and was first transferred from 
the Greek into the Latin and then into the English 
Testament, plainly proving that, in the godly judg- 
ment oi the learned divines all through the centuries, 
its meaning could not be expressed by immergo, or 
immerse or any kindred word. 

In their view, immerse had never been " sanctified 
by the word of God and prayer." It belonged to 
heathen and secular life, and found no place in the sa- 
cred vocabulary of revealed religion. 

" Baptism, according to Webster, is the application 
of water to a person, as a sacrament or religious cere- 
mony." I have never yet been able to comprehend 
how an immersion can express the application of wa- 
ter to a person. Philip baptized the eunuch, that is, 
applied water, to his person. John baptized with 
water, that is, used water as the instrument or means 
and applied it to the people. God baptizes with the 
Holy Ghost, that is, applies the Spirit to man and not 
man to the Spirit. The element in every case is ac- 
tive and the subject is passive. But in the case of an 
immersion this order is reversed, and the candidate is 
active and the element is passive. He wades into the 
water, and being usually requested to hold his breath, 
his head and shoulders are dipped under water. In 
every step of this process, the candidate is applied to 



32 

the element, and not the element to the candidate, 
and, strictly speaking, the element is baptized, and 
not the person, for the active always baptizes the pas- 
sive. We define our position as follows: In the ab- 
sence ol any explicit divine command as to just how 
a person should be baptized, we conclude that God 
has wisely left this as well as all similar external mat- 
ters to the option of the individual and to circum- 
stances. The thing is what God requires, not the 
niode. The baptism is equally acceptable to Hivi 
whether it be performed by sprinkling, pouring, or 
by a single or trine immersion. The mode is a mat- 
ter absolutely indifferent and non-essential. If, how- 
ever, the Scriptures do authorize one mode above an- 
other, we affirm, it gives the preference in all cases to 
sprinkling or pouring. As the photograph resembles 
the original, as the shadow outlines the substance, as 
the picture portrays the landscape, as the sign repre- 
sents the thing signified^ so the water baptism should 
always symbolize the Spirit baptism. The mode of 
the one should correspond to the mode of the other. 
As the Spirit alwa3"s descends^ falls iifon and is potcr- 
edo7it on the subject, the inference is irresistible, that 
such should be the mode of water baptism. We will 
not, however, insist upon this, but shall allow all oth- 
ers the same libert}^ ot thought that we claim for our- 
selves. If all parties would acquiesce in this reason- 



33 
able and Scriptural principle, the discussion of this 
subject would terminate forever. But when persons 
arise and boldly declare that there is one and 
only one mode of baptism and that this mode is the 
Alpha and Omega of the ordinance, and unless you 
are submerged by a minister of the would-be regular 
Baptist succession, you have not received Christian bap- 
tism and have no Scrifture warrant to be called a 
Christian Church ; we pause and inquire by what au- 
thority this boastful avowal is made. Then it is, that dis- 
cussion becomes inevitable. And in the language of 
Patrick Henry, I say, let it come., and may God ad- 
judge the responsibility where it belongs. It is a 
great gain, in the discussion of any subject, to be able 
to trace out the history of the error combatted. Hu- 
man nature has ever been prone to corrupt the insti- 
tutions of God. Even the Church at Corrinth in the 
days of the Apostle Paul, converted the sacrament of 
the Lord's Supper into a scene of feasting and disor- 
der. 

And even to the present time this beautiful and im- 
pressive sacrament is encumbered and corrupted by 
the monstrous and revolting error of transubstantia- 
tion. Much more would the simple rite of baptism 
be corrupted by many inventions of men after the 
death of the apostles. An error once started goes of 
itself. It accelerates its progress like a stone rolling 



34 
down hill. Such is the history of immersion, and 
centuries afterwards, of exclusive immersion. Immer- 
sion began its existence in the Christian Church in the 
latter part of the second century, almost one hundred 
years after the death of the last apostle. It was intro- 
duced in company with several other superstitious 
practices, such as exorcism, unction, the sign of the 
cross, and the white garment with which the bap- 
tized person was clothed as emblematical of his put- 
ting on Christ, and. this garment was laid up in the 
Church as a witness against the candidate's apostacy. 
The Encyclopedia Brittannica gives a minute account 
of these ancient and ostentatious ceremonies. It sa^> 
{Arl Baftism^ "After the questions and answ^ers, fol- 
lowed exorcism ; the manner and end of which was 
this: the minister laid his hand on the person's head 
and breathed in his face, implying thereby the driving 
away or expelling the devil from him, and preparing 
him for baptism, by which the good and holy spirit 
was to be conferred upon him. After exorcism follow- 
ed baptism itself, and first the minister by prayer con- 
secrated the water for that use. The waters being- 
consecrated, the person was baptized in the name of 
the Father and of the Son, and of the Hoh^ Ghost; 
by which dedication of him to the blessed Trinity, the 
person (says Clemens Alexandrinus\ is delivered 
from the corrupt trinit}^ the devil, the world and the 



35 
flesh. In performing the ceremony of baptism, the 
usual custom (except in clinical cases, or where there 
was a scarcity of water) was to immerse and dip the 
whole body. And this practice of immersing the 
whole body was so general, that we find no exception 
made either in respect to the tenderness of infants or 
the bashfulness of the other sex, unless in cases of 
sickness and other disabilities. But to prevent any in^ 
decency, men and women were baptized apart. To 
which end, either the baptistries were, divided into tw^o 
apartments, one for the men and the other for the 
women, or the men were baptized at one time and the 
women at another. There was anciently an order of 
deaconesses, one part of whose business was to assist 
at the baptism of women. After immersion, followed 
the unction, by which (says St. Cyril) was signified 
that they were now cut oft' from the wild olive, and 
were ingrafted into Christ, tiie true olive tree. With 
this anointing was joined the sign of the cross, made 
upon the forehead of the baptized person, and the 
white robe was given him, to denote his being washed 
from the defilements of sin, and having put on Christ." 
Such were the superstitious inventions of men, with 
which immersion began its history. Where dp we 
read of such show and paraphernalia in connection 
with the administration of the baptismal rite in the 
New Testament ? Where do we find any account o^ 



36 
a baptistry in the days of the apostles, or of the first 
two centuries of the Christian era? Such an institution 
is the invention of the corrupt and superstitious days 
of the Church. The apostles baptized anywhere or 
at any time, by a river or in a desert, in the house of a 
Jew or Gentile, in a jail at the dead hour of midnight, 
or in the city full. Neither sickness nor sex, the ten- 
derness of childhood or the feebleness of age, or the 
scarcity of water, presented any obstruction to the 
immediate administration of the rite. With them a 
dew-drop was as effectual as an ocean. Philip Shaff, 
in the first volume of his admirable Church history, 
says: "Water is absolutely necessary to baptism, as an 
appropriate symbol of the purifying and regenerating 
energy of the Holy Ghost ; but whether the water be 
in a large quantity or small, cold or warm, fresh or 
salt, from river, cistern, or spring, is relatively imma- 
terial." There are three -things to be noted m connec- 
tion with the introduction of the custom of immersion. 

{a.) Men and women were immersed separately, 
and deaconesses were appointed to superintend the 
immersion of the women. Promiscuous immersion, 
like promiscuous dancing, are inventions of modern 
times. 

(b) The' baptism of infants was as common as that 
of adults. 

{c) No one pretended that immersion was the only 



37 

Scriptural baptism. This was an error of later 
times, as we shall see. All unanimously admitted that 
sprinkling was of equal validity with an immersion, 
and immersiou was only practiced when health and 
other circumstances justified it. As long as these 
three things were allowed, there was no conflict of 
of opinion on this subject. A new and disturbing 
doctrine on the subject of baptism was first promulga- 
ted in the early part of the sixteenth century. 

According to D'Aubigne's History of the Reforma- 
tion, it originated in Germany, that hot-bed of almost 
every religious error of humanity. A few bold, restless, 
proselyting spirits came to Wittemberg and alarmed 
the whole city, and the Professors of the University, by 
their strange and un-Scriptural declarations. Even 
the sweet-spirited Melancthon was disquieted at the 
new doctrine^ as he said, which they professed on the 
sacrament of baptism. They declared their purpose 
to form a church within the church, composed exclu- 
sively of true believers. They disdainfully rejected 
the baptism of infants, as of no more account than the 
sprinkling of a cat, though it had been the acknowl- 
edged practice of the Church for sixteen hundred 
years. 

"A new haftism^'' says D'Aubigne, "was fixed upon 
as the means of gathering their congregations," and 
they proceeded to re-baptfze all who followed their 



38 

way of error. Luther was summoned to the scene 
of intense and wild excitement. His coming was like 
the return of a bright morning after a dark and stormy 
night. He exposed the fallacy of their new-fangled 
doctrine, in eight logical and masterly sermons. Ob- 
jections vanished, the tumult subsided, and the fanat- 
ical innovators were scattered abroad. Their error, 
however, which suddenly germinated and grew like 
rank vegetation, or noxious weeds in those "times of 
refreshing" could not be so suddenly extirpated, but, 
like a stone cast into the waters, has continued to 
spread, in ever- widening circles, to the present day. 
The Reformers, however, called a Council, and issued 
the following theses: 

"Children born of faithful parents are the children 
of God, like those born under the Old Testament; 
and consequently they can receive baptism. 

"The usage of baptizing anew cannot be proved, 
either by example or by passages, or by arguments 
drawn from the Scriptures ; and those who submit to 
a new baptism crucify Jesus Christ." 

In the early part of the seventeenth centur}^, 1639, 
in Rhode Island, Ezekiel HoUiman, a layman, im- 
mersed Roger Williams, and Mr. Williams turned 
around and immersed Ezekiel and ten others. Such 
was the origin of the rebaptizers, and of exclusive 
immersion in this country. From that time to this, 



39 
there has been a controversy on this subject in our 
land, and no doubt will be as long as this un-Scriptu- 
ral dogma is maintained. 

Allow me to say, "however, on the authority of the 
American Encyclopedia," that Roger Williams soon 
afterward confessed his error, declared the illegiti- 
mate and unauthorized character of the whole pro- 
cedure, and withdrew from all fellowship with the re- 
baptizers. It is not possible, how^ever, for even a 
great and good man to arrest by subsequent misgiv- 
ings and eflbrts, the consequences of even a single 
7niS'Ste-p^ and the error that Williams confessed and 
deplored, has moved on like an evil genius, to mar 
and disfigure the work of Christ from that day till 
now. 

The early and continued perversion of this simple 
rite may be mainly attributed to two causes: First, a 
disposition to ascribe peculiar and saving virtue to the 
observance of external forms. Indiaism and heathen- 
ism, Romanism and Protestantism, all bear mournfu^ 
testimon}^ to this propensity of human nature. 

The second cause arises from a false and mistaken 
interpretation of two verses of Scripture. I refer to 
Rom., 6, 4, and Col., 12. 

Perhaps no words of Scripture have been more fre- 
quently misquoted and misapplied than these two 
verses. They have been made to exert a bew^itching 
and misleading influence upon many minds. 



40 

The passage in Romans is confessedly the most im- 
portant. Let us examine it first. The design of the 
whole sixth chapter of Romans is to prove that the 
believer is dead to sin. Every allusion, argument and 
illustration, is designed to establish that one point. 
The apostle had been charged with preaching a Gos- 
pel that encouraged a continuance in sin. He refutes 
this slander with an emphatic denial, and declares the 
believer to be dead to sin. "God forbid; how shall 
we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ?" 
He then shows that the very fact of baptism obligated 
the Christian to a complete renunciation of sin. "Know 
yet not that so many of us as were baptized into 
Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ? As Christ 
died for sin, so the believer is to be dead to sin. The 
apostle, then, emphasizes and intensities the fact of the 
believer's death to sin in the fourth verse. "There- 
fore, we are buried with him by baptism inio death 
(not into water); that like as Christ was raised up 
from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so 
we also being raised (not out of the water) but from a 
state of deadness in trespasses and sin, should walk in 
newness of life. A burial is mentioned for two pur- 
poses, ia) to intensif}^ the fact of the believer's death to 
sin, {b) to furnish a proper antithesis to the resurrec- 
tion "to newness of life" that follows. Thebeliever's 
death, burial, and resurrection with Christ, are inner 



41 
facts of experience, moral and spiritual changes 
wrought by the Spirit of God, in the depths of the 
soul. 

Moses Stuart says "that there is no more necessary 
reference here to the modus of baptism, than there is to 
the modus of the resurrection." The one may as well 
be maintained as the other." In Col. 2, 12, a similar 
burial and resurrection are mentioned, not to teach the 
mode of baptism, but to show the Christian's com- 
pleteness in Him "who is the head of all," principality 
and power. "In whom also ye are circumcised with 
the circumcision made without hands, buried with 
Him in baptism." Now to be "circumcised with the 
circumcision made without hands, and to be buried 
with Christ in baptism," mean precisely the same 
things and express precisely the same part of experi- 
ence. The apostle teaches that what circumcision 
was to the Old Testament Church, such is baptism to 
the New Testament Church, and both signify the 
"putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by th^ 
circumcision of Christ." The circumcision is spirit" 
ual, for "it is made without hands." The resurrection 
is spiritual, for it is "through the faith of the operation 
of God, and now what must the "burial with him in 
baptism be?" "I speak as to wise men, judge ye what 
I say." It is a strong and bold expression to denote 
the Christian's complete union and identification with 
Christ. 



42 

Their baptism attested their divine renewal and 
consequent mystical identification with Christ in His 
death, burial, and resurrection. The most eminent 
•points of Christ's history thus became spiritually in- 
corporated into the sanctified characters and lives of 
these devoted Christians. 

Besides all this, it not merely expresses an act ot 
the past, but the permanent and abiding state of their 
souls. "Ye are circumcised^ buried^ and risen with 
him. To make it mean a literal burial under water, 
would be to keep the Christians at Colosse and at 
Rome a long time under water. 

Mr. Wesley says, "such a figurative expression 
makes as much for sprinkling as for plunging; since, in 
burying, the body is not plunged through the sub- 
stance of the earth, but rather, earth is poured or 
sprinkled upon it." Dr. Whedon says, "In Rome, 
whither Paul sent his epistle to the Romans, a hand- 
ful of dust thrown upon a corpse was held to be legal 
ritual burial. The same custom prevails in this 
country. A handful of dirt is sprinkled three 
times upon the lowered casket, whilst the minister 
- pronounces the words, "earth to earth, ashes to ashes, 
dust to dust." Christ's body, however, was never 
low^ered under ground, but laid on a horizontal shelf 
in an excavated rock. And to suppose that our burial 
with him, spoken of in these verses, means an immer- 



43 
sion in water, is to make the apostles' inspired utter- 
ances tame and meaningless. The pouring of the 
alabaster box of ointment on the body of Christ rep- 
resented his burial (Matt. 26. 13.) This pouring may 
prefigure a burial, but there is no fact in all the history 
of Christ's life or death that can be represented by an 
immersion. 

Knowing, however, how slow people are to abandon 
a religious error, when once it has been embraced, I 
wish to make another point before closing this part of 
my subject. It is confidently asserted on the assumed 
authority of the two verses of Scripture in Rom. 6., 
and Col. 2. 12., that our baptism should symbolize the 
death, burial, and resurrection of our blessed Lord, 
and hence should be, by immersion under water. 
This is claimed to be its chief import. Perhaps no 
assumption has had a more fascinating influence over 
young minds than this. Were it not for the apparent 
seriousness with which this supposed symbolism is 
believed and taught, I would institute a somewhat 
incongruous comparison, and ask what resemblance 
can be imagined to exist between a gasping, dripping 
candidate, lifted by a puny arm of flesh, out of the 
water, and the mighty Jesus, bursting the bands of 
death, and coming forth from his rocky tomb, clothed 
with divine power and majesty. Can even the most 
poetical imagination discern even the remotest point 



44 
of resemblance between the "sorry sight" of the 
former and the glorious appearance of the latter. A 
resemblance might be traced, with as much propriety, 
between the golden calf of Aaron and "the image of 
the invisible God." 

It is a law of all symbolism for the external to repre- 
sent the internal, for the material to embody and 
adumbrate the spiritual. Now if the external form of 
baptism should symbolize a literal burial, then the 
external represents the exlernal, the material symbol- 
izes the material, and, according to this principle, the 
whole system of sacred symbolism becomes absurd 
and senseless. This is the great error of Romanism, 
w^hen it claims that the bread and wine in the hand of 
the priest, represent the literal body and blood of the 
Lord Jesus. I would pause here, were it not for the 
importance which exclusive immersion assigns to this 
particular point. If baptism symbolizes a burial, or 
has anything to do with the death of Christ, what 
does the sacrament of the Lord's Supper indicate ? 
All admit that the latter was instituted "to show the 
Lord's death till he come." (See i Cor., 11-26. The 
bread and wine symbolize the blessed fact that Christ 
"was delivered for our offences, and raised again for 
our justification." 

If baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resur- 
rection of Christ, then the Lord's Supper is a useless 



45 
a^pefidage of .the Gospel, like the fifth wheel of a 
wagon. 

No, m}^ hearers, the blessed Lord never spoke an 
idle word or instituted a needless ceremony. He 
instituted two and only two plain and simple sacra- 
ments for two plain and significant purposes. The 
province of each is marked and distinct. There is no 
confusion or Jargon between them. The one does 
not intrude upon the province of the other. 

Water has been employed in all the ages and relig- 
ions of the world as the symbol of cleansing and 
purity. Pilate washed his hands as an emblem of his 
assumed freedom "from the blood of that just person." 

David says, "I will wash my hands in innocency, or 
as a symbol of my innocency." God says: "I will 
sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean." 

Water has but one ceremonial signification in all 
the ritual of the Old Testament. Nowhere in the 
Bible is water, in any of its uses, emblematical of a 
burial. A grave is the place of loathsomeness, cor- 
ruption, and decay. 

"How frightful tne grave ! how deserted and drear ! 

With the howls of the storm-wind, the creaks of the bier, 

And the white hones all clattering together." 

Can water, with its healthful, invigorating, purifying 
properties, symbolize the dreary regions of the dead? 
Water pertains to life, not to death. The water Of 
baptism symbolizes, not the burial of the dead, but the 



46 

transformation of the living. "It is the outward sign 
of an inward grace." Away, then, with the far- 
fetched, unnatural, unscri^ttiral idea of baptism as 
figuring a burial. It is the relic of a degenerate and 
superstitious age. It is contrary to Scripture and 
common sense. What is, then, the precise symboli- 
cal signification of water in the baptismal rite. The 
Scriptures, wdth one voice, proclaim it as the symbol 
of the awakening, regenerating, and purifying agency 
of the Holy Ghost. 

John's baptism had no meaning, unless it typified 
the outpouring of the Spirit. "And as I began to 
speak," said Peter, "the Hoh^ Ghost /e/l upon them 
as upon us at the beginning. Then remembered I the 
word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed bap- 
tized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the 
Holy Ghost." 

The falling of the Spirit upon the household of Cor- 
nelius, reminded Peter of the falling of the water of 
John's baptism upon the penitent people, and of its 
symbolical signification. The fact and mode of the 
Spirit baptism, suggested to Peter's mind by a neces- 
sary law^ of the association of ideas, thefiacl and ?node 
of John's baptism, and hence John's baptism must 
have been "by the descent of the element upon the 
person, and not of the person into the element." In 
accordance with this suggestion, Peter promptly in- 



47 
quired: "Can any man forbid water, that these should 
not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost 
as well as we ? 

In plain English etiquette, this question would be as 
follows: Will some one present be kind enough to 
fetch some water, that these may be baptized ? This 
was a service which it was in the power of an}' one 
present to grant or withhold. A vessel of water was 
no doubt immediateh' brought in, and Cornelius and 
his household were baptized by ailusion on the spot. 
"We have here a principle of interpretation," says 
Dr. Whedon. "The symbol ought always to conform 
to and pictuse its original. Now, spirit baptism is the 
original of which water baptism is the symbol. If 
spirit baptism be by affusion^ certainly water baptism 
must also be by affusion. Spiritual affusion cannot 
be symbolized by immersion in water. Hence im- 
mersion fundamentally fails to be a picture of the orig- 
inal. It is a symbol without a reality, a shadow with- 
out a substance. This unmeaning symbol, this imag- 
inary shadow, this exclusive immersion., would scarcely 
deserve a serious thought, were it not for the results 
involved in it. 

Every circumstance is to be measured by its conse- 
quences. It is believed that America was discovered 
centuries before Columbus kissed her virgin soil, but 
no results followed, and no new country was made 



48 

tributary to the wealth of Europe, and hence the dis- 
covery is accounted as nothing in history. The mere 
taking of the forbidden fruit by our first progenitor, 
would have been a slight and unnoticed act, had it not 
"brought death and all our woe" into the world. An 
immersion may be allowed as a harmless ceremony, 
when the temperature is favorable and all parties are 
agreed, but when it is practiced and insisted u^on as 
the sole and the only mode of Scripture baptism, it is 
attended by consequences that are truly to be repro- 
bated by every right-minded person. It, then, be- 
comes a question, not as to the mode of performing a 
religious ceremony, but a question as to the right of 
the Church itself to exist. It becomes a question of 
Church or no Church. It affects the foundation prin- 
ciples of a true Protestantism and a pure Christianity. 
Every ordinance and institution, every rite and privi- 
lege of the visible kingdom of God, is involved in a 
Scriptural adjustment of this tiresome controvei'sy. I 
charitably believe that few persons have any adequate 
conception of the deplorable consequences that inevit- 
ably follow their submission to exclusive immersion, 
any more than Adam had anv thought of the dire re- 
sults that would flow from his partaking of the inter- 
dicted fruit. 

ia) The first logical consequence I shall mention is 
this: It necessarily produces a narrow and bigoted con- 



49 
ception ol the Sacraments of the Church of God. 
The Church is the pillar of the. truth, built upon the 
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ 
himself being the chief corner-stone. Its members 
are expected to exhibit supreme love to God and un- 
selfish love to man. The ver}" moment any man 
claims that the mere external attitude or mode of per- 
forming an}^ religious duty or sacrament, is essential to 
its highest validity, he, at once, dwarfs the powers of 
his own being, "entangles himself in a 37oke of bond- 
age, and dishonors the God of the Bible. Whether 
a man sits, stands, kneels, or reclines, he may offer 
acceptable prayer to God. The outward attitude is 
regulated by custom and circumstances, "for the Lord 
looketh on the heart. ' 

Sitting, standing, or kneeling, the Sacrament of the 
Lord's Supper may be Scripturally celebrated. Why, 
then, should an individual or a Church ever insist 
upon a ■particidar mode ol administering baptism ? 
Can the quantity of the water or the mode of its ap- 
plication, in the least affect the divine validity of the 
ordinance ? God regards the state and temper of the 
soul, and not the posture and movement of the body, 
and to suppose that the great and holy God respects 
the mere outward mode of observing any sacrament is 
not only an outrage on common sense, but degrades 
God himself to the level of <7 bigot. Lutherans, Pres- 



so 

byterians and Methodists assume a different position, 
whilst partaking the elements of the Lord's Supper. 
Shall the Methodist, theretore, say to the Lutheran, 
you do not commune Scripturally because you do not 
kneel as the Methodist does? No more shall the 
Baptist say to the Presbyterian, you do not baptize 
Scripturally, because you do not 7'?jivie?'se as the Bap- 
tist does. No ! let every individual and Church adopt 
and pursue its own mode of observing the Sacraments 
of God's house, and let not the one imc/mrc/i, "bite 
and devour the other" because of any diversity of 
opinion and practice in these indifferent matters. We 
look, with mingled feelings of pity and shame, upon 
the long and bitter controversy in the early Church, 
as to the kind of bread to be used in the Holy Supper. 
And yet it is just as reasonable to contend for a par- 
ticular kind of bread as for a particular mode of bap- 
tism. 

(3) An exclusive immersion inevitably leads to a 
useless and sacrilegious repetition of the holy ordi- 
nance of baptism. For wise and scriptural reason, 
God never designed that baptism, administered by a 
properly accredited minister of Christ, in the name of 
the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, should ever be 
repeated. He that has been once baptized, has 
received the essence of the Sacrament and a thousand 
repetitions can neither add thereto or substract there- 



5^ 
from. Therefore, he who administers the ordinance 
the second time, is justly guilty of making common 
what God intended should be sacred. The marriage 
ceremony, once properly solemnized, is binding for 
life, and any repetition of it is vain and useless ; so 
baptism, the outward sign and seal of our espousal to 
our heavenly Bridegroom, is obligatory for time and 
eternity, and 'any repetition of the ordinance is vain 
and blasphemous. Luther and the great Protestant 
Reformers assembled in Council, said: "Those who 
submit to a new baptism crucify Jesus Christ." "In 
my view," says Adam Clark, "it is an awful thing to 
iterate baptism when it had been before essentiatly 
performed; by "^55^;2//<7//y performed' I mean, admin- 
istered by sprinkling, washing, or plunging by or in 
water^ in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, 
being invoked at the time. Whoever has had this, has 
the essence of baptism, as far as that can be conferred 
by man; and it matters not at what period of his life he 
has had it, it is a substantial baptism, and the repeti- 
tion of such a baptism I believe to be frofane. It is 
totally contrary to the canon law ; it is contrary to the 
decisions of the best divines; it is contrary to the prac- 
tice of the purest ages of the Church of God ; it is 
contrary to the New Testament, and tends to bring 
this sacred ordinance into disrepute." (See Acts 19, 5.) 
This great and learned commentator thus adduces six 



52 

reasons why baptism should never be repeated, and 
in the same connection, he challenges the world to 
produce '■^one instance of a person being rebaptized, 
who had before been baptized in the name ot the Holy 
Trinity, or even in the name of Jesus alone. The 
Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, like the Passover, 
was to be "oft" observed in remembrance of Christ. 
The Sacrament of baptism, like circumcision, should 
never be repeated. When once administered, it 
ceaseth forever. This repetition of baptism is a very 
serious consequence of exclusive immersion, and I 
hope my hearers will take it to heart. 

{c) A third consequence is, it necessarily develops 
an uncharitable and an unchristian view of the charac- 
ter and standing of sister churches. From such a 
standpoint, one is obliged to consider all other Church- 
es as "thieves and robbers, climbing up some other 
way." Their members are enemies, heretics, and 
false brethren, avoiding the cross of Christ. The 
ministers of other Churches are "false shepherds, 
deceiving and being deceived." They are intruders 
into the sacred office, with no scripture authority, to 
solemnize matrimony, administer baptism, or conse- 
crate the dying memorials of a Saviour's love. The 
sacraments they administer are an empty parade — a 
sublime and ridiculous farce. It is, indeed, shocking, 
to contemplate the many awful consequences to which 



53 
exclusive immersion leads. It would disintegrate and 
dismember every Church in Christendom, and plunge 
their millions of devoted communicants into its idol- 
ized vortex. As the Jews regarded themselves as 
the exclusive people of God and the favorites of 
heaven, so in the view of exclusive immersion, all 
other denominations of Christians, however devoted 
and "zealous of good works," are in the deplorable 
condition of unbaptized heathens, and can never attain 
to a Christian character and standing till they submit 
themselves to a regular system of plunging. The 
fraternization of other Churches is thus utterly incom- 
patible with an adherence to this false and exclusive 
dogma. 

(d) Again, exclusive immersion necessitates the 
imposition of a yoke upon the human family more 
galling and oppressive than the bloody rite of circum- 
cision. The administration of the sacraments of the 
Lord, is to be co-extensive with the promulgation of 
the Gospel. According to Humboldt, eight millions 
of human beings inhabit polar and frozen regions. 
From six to ten months of the year, these latitudes are 
bound in "thick-ribbed ice." In the regions of the 
Esquimaux, lakes and rivers freeze to the bottom. In 
Greenland and Lapland, brandy and mercury congeal 
during their long and heartless winters. The popu- 
lations crowd themselves together in small huts, and 



54 
use ice instead of glass for their windows. The air 
pierces and rends the lungs upon the least exposure. 
Unto "these must the Gospel be preached as well as 
unto us." Churches will yet arise in the very bosom 
of these inhospitable regions. The ordinances will 
there be administered as well as here. Circumcision 
might have been practiced amid these polar snows, 
but an immersion in water is utterly out of the ques- 
tion. Exclusive immersion, therefore, would bind a 
burden on the human race more cruel and unmerciful 
than the yoke which neither "the Jews nor their fathers 
w^ere able to bear." 

Equally superstitious is the idea that no harm can 
possiblv result from the administration of exclusive 
immersion. The severity of the w^eather or the health 
and constitution of the minister or candidate are cir- 
cumstances of no moment, compared with the special 
Providence that shall preside over the practice of this 
particular mode. Such reasoning reminds me of the 
language of Satan in Christ's temptation: "He shall 
give His angels charge concerning thee." Christ's 
reply at that time is applicable to the present case: 
"Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." There is 
no Providence that wdll arrest the consequences of any 
presumptuous act or rash exposure. 

Instances not a few are on record, where the health 
of persons has been seriously impaired and their lives 



55 
abridged by this unnatural and unscriptural "bodily 
exercise," which "profiteth little." What Paul said to 
the jailor applies to all: "Dothyself no harm." Heav- 
en's way has always been easy and simple; man's way 
is always hard and complicated. 

Possibly some may regard an immersion under 
difficult and forbidding circumstances as a cross to be 
borne, and hence insist 21^071 it as a test of piety. If 
such is the case, we do not hesitate to affirm that 
such a view of a cross is akin to the Papist's idea of 
penance, or the Brahmin's notion of self-torture — ideas 
that savor more of ignorance and superstition than of 
enlightened piet}-. Christ says, "My yoke is easy 
and my burden is light." "His commandments are 
not grievous," and the ordinances of his worship adjust 
themselves, in their external application, to the neces- 
sities and diversified circumstances of man. This 
exclusive devotion to an external form, has always 
been a prolific source of trouble in the Church. It 
annoyed the apostle Paul more than any other cir- 
cumstance in his ministry. He was everywhere pur- 
sued and dogged by the advocates of a Jewish exclu- 
siveness, who endeavored to propagate, not a broad 
Bible Christianity, but a partial, one-sided, Judaistic 
Christianity, and their loud and constant demand was : 
"Except ye be circumcised, ye cannot be saved." As 
baptism now occupies the place of circumcision in the 



56 
Church, the kindred demand and cry of our day is, 
"except ye be immersed, }'e cannot be saved," or have 
not received Christian baptism. With this false teach- 
ing, multitudes are now deceived and perverted, as 
they were in the da3-s of the Apostle. Look at the 
Galatian churches converted and established in sound 
doctrine bv the instrumentalitv of the apostle himself. 
Bigoted Jewish preachers entered and demanded sub- 
mission to a certain external rite. In the absence of 
the Apostle the demand is yielded, the rite of circum- 
cision is administered and the apostle Paul is regarded 
b}' his own children in the faith as their worst enemy. 
The perverted and misguided Galatians afterwards 
refused to fellowship their own father in the Gospel. 

How often has this picture been verified in modern 
times. I can conceive of no form of teaching more 
2tngenerous and icnscriptural t\\^n an attempt, whether 
direct or indirect, to induce a person, old or young, to 
ignore and renounce the baptism conferred at the re- 
quest of a sainted father and mother, and submit to . 
the fatal ■plunge that shall forever debar from all 
communion "of the bodv and blood of Christ,'' with 
former beloved friends in the Lord. This is the 
nnkindest cut of all, with which Christianity is too 
often stabbed. 

Though those Judaizing preachers taught a great 
and fundamental error, we are not to regard them as 



57 

corrupt and ungodlv men. Xo immorality is alleged 
against them. They were men of sober and grave 
habits, exemplary in life, and "exceedingly zealous for 
the traditions ol their fathers." They belonged to "the 
sect of the Pharisees, which believed." Acts 15, 5. 
They believed in Christ, accepted and preached Chris- 
tianity, but it was a Christianity fettered and clogged 
with the dead weight of circumcision. They made 
circumcision the door of admission to the rights and 
pri^^leges of the Christian Church. Thev would 
rejoice over the conversion of the Pagans, but would 
compel them to pass under the yoke of circumcision^ 
as a condition of Church membership. Their erro- 
neous teaching, like the doctrine of exclusive immer- 
sion, always excited opposition and discord, wherever 
disseminated. 

"Certain men which came down from Judea" 
taught this false doctrine in the Church at Antioch^ 
and produced no little excitement and disturbance 
among the brethren. Paul and Barnabas promptlv 
opposed their heresy, and "had no small dissension and 
disputation with them." 

What a perfect parallel to this picture do we have 
in the modern advocates of exclusive immersion. 
They, like their predecessors, are man}' of them men 
of self-denial, devotion, and perseverance. They, too, 
are zealous for the propagation of Christianit\' at home 



53 
and abroad, but prescribe exclusive immersion as the 
condition of Church membership to all mankind. This 
is the great and egregious error, with which their 
w^hole system is saturated as with a poison, and to 
which they cling, like the early Jewish zealots, with 
the grip of death. It is the same error, only under a 
different name, which Paul and Barnabas publicly 
antagonized and exposed in the Jewish bigots at An- 
tioch. 

The error then, consisted in supplementing the 
Gospel with Moses and circumcision. The kindred 
error of the present day consists in supplementing 
Christianity with John the Baptist and exclusive im- 
mersion. Paul and Barnabas preached a free and 
unfettered Christianity, disburdened of every supersti- 
tious and superannuated encumbrance. 

Their liberal terms of admission to the Church 
^ave great offence to those intolerant sticklers for an 
external form, even as our free and evangelical terms of 
open communion greatly disgust the* extreme immer- 
^ionists. It is hardly possible for a comparison to be 
more complete in all its parts. May the Lord open 
the eyes of the modern contenders for exclusive immer- 
sion, and enable them to see their own likeness, in this 
particular, in the early and determined opponents o{ 
Paul and Barnabas. 

I shall mention one more consequence, and then re- 



59 
lieve the already overtaxed patience of my hearers. 

(e) The doctrine of exclusive immersion renders it 
utterly impracticable for Christians of all denomina- 
tions to unite their prayers, sympathies and energies 
in one common effort for the conversion of souls to 
Christ. How often has the blessed promise of a 
gracious shower been entirely frustrated by more at- 
tention to the "letter that killeth, than to the Spirit that 
giveth life." The substance is swallowed up in the 
form, and the precious cause of Jesus is wounded in 
the house of his professed friends. Never can there 
be complete union of plan and action till "this that 
hindereth" is taken out of the way. The American 
Bible Societ}' is established upon the broad, evangel- 
ical principle of a true Protestantism, regardless of 
denominational differences, and yet exclusive immer- 
sion opposes an insuperable barrier to a co7nplete co- 
operation with its glorious and world-wide purposes, 
and work. It is a fence that God never reared, and 
w^hich the Scriptures condemn — a partition wall that 
should be broken down. May it fall like the walls of 
Jericho, and I was about to say, may Joshua's male- 
diction rest upon any attempt to rebuild it. It is a 
mighty obstruction to the Gospel car, an annoyance 
and vexation to the followers of Christ, and a stum- 
bling-block to the world. 

In Paul's great argument on the resurrection, he 



6o 

shows that the incredible and impious consequences 
that necessarily follow the denial of the resurrection of 
the body, completely refute the assumption that there 
is no resurrection of the dead. So we say that even apart 
from the unscriptural character of exclusive immer- 
sion, these deplorable consequences, that necessarily 
grow out of it, are sufficient of themselves to condemn 
and forever brand the doctrine as a mischievous and 
dangerous heresy. There is scarcely an error or tra- 
dition of Romanism more obnoxious to the character 
of the Gospel than this dogma of exclusive immersion. 
It is a blotch, an unseemly excrescence on the out- 
ward form of Christianity — a needless and an offen- 
sive bone of contention among Protestant churches. 
It antagonizes the unity ol the Spirit, and breaks 
asunder the bond of peace. 

Ma}' the great Head of the Church descend in the 
sifting -power of the blessed Spirit, and eradicate 
from ever}^ ecclesiastical communion, its inventions and 
traditions of men, that the pure gold of the glorious 
Gospel of the Son of God, may shine out in its native 
loveliness and divine power, and that Christians of 
every name may realize how good and how pleasant 
a thing it is for brethren to dwell together in unity, 
and the world be constrained to sa}-, as it did in the 
days of primitive simplicity and fellowship, "Behold 
how these Christians love one another and are willing 
to die for one another." 

"Even so. Lord Jesus, come quickly." Amex. 



EXCLUSIVE IMMERSION 



ITS ERRORS 



It^ I^ogickl Coiiv^equei^ce^; 



Rev. L LINEBARGER, A. M, 

OF THE KOCK RIVER COXFERE>-0E. 

Ye do Err, Xot KnoAving the Soi'iptnres— J/af/(. 22, 29, 



MULTUM IN PAR VO, 



3IILWAUKEE : 
Printed by I. L. Hauser & Company 

1876. 




i'^. 




cu 






«.^ 



i 




i 



^ 

^ s 



i 



e 



4f 

<9^ 



'^'Wvi-^ 



VWw, iJ'J^ 



:cv».v 



w^^«»w- 



w'>v:;^--w-^-r 



w'v^^ 



'^;^-^^^^o.: 



;u^^''VVVa^,W>^VWv'Vy^^^^v,^y;jv^ 



^Vvwu 



yyyy^^^^v 



vuvwv 



/^■'v'^WyyJ^VV^^'^'w'V^^V 



v^w'v' 






•vuv^^v 



^W^vWVv^W^wWv^vU 



v\/y^,r,v/VVi-,W 



S^vJXv^l^V^^VW^V^Vv 



'VVv J V'uV 



,vw^w 



^WV'^Vwv^V^WV^W^WW 



^^W^^Wwwwv*^''^ 






JW^VWi^^vvVUwWvvvv^ 






«ov„V,v^^ 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proce 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologif 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATrt 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township PA 16066 
724)779-2111 



,A;VUC 






VVvU^VV^^, VVU'^V/V^VVVVVVUW' 









Vwvv 



v*^vv^ 



vr^y^v^ivj^^^ 



-vvw,,,,;vyv,^vvv,w. 



VyW^^yVVVv Vw- ■" VVVw^'^VW 



vyV^'^^^^VVvj^ 



VWuvVW\;y^ 









^wnVVvv 



^^^v^^^vwvvvvvwwv'g 



VW'vi^VWV'v 



^V.^wuvW, 



^■yVWWVVV'WVV^^'l^vgW' 



i ;W*^VWi 



ivvwvvwwwvvwv" ^^v 






^'^vwvwju'r^^VVVWwVi 



VWVJWWWW 



vvvv^'v^VWW 



^^V^vO'wvV^V^wWw^^^^ 






/V'^'^^N^WW^^^WWW^ 



^^w^'*^w'wg^ 



VVVV 



WWww'^VWV, 



